Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] [Headline text]
[edit] May 27
[edit] Image:Pho19.jpg
This picture is copyrighted, and the copyright holder is not the uploader. There is painter's signature in the corner, and this painter hasn't died enough long to put it into GFDL. Vinhtantran (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- if this is a photo of a copyrighted work then the copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer. Copyright of an object does not extend to all photos or alternative interpretations of it. If this is in fact a photograph of the artwork then the copyright of the photo does not belong to the artist. 00:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.110.82 (talk)
- It is still copyright of the original artist (who only died in 1988) refer Derivative work unless it has been changed in some way from the original (and not just a straight photograph). It may be possible to claim a non-free use rationale but only if used in an article that discusses the original painting. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pho co.jpg
The quality of the photo shows that it was taken about 10 years or more ago. I wish to know where the uploader took the picture and how can he have GFDL license — Vinhtantran (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cau the huc.jpg
I suspect he is violating copyright for following reasons: 1) This photo has a large white frame cover, why didn't he/she upload original version if he/she can (that what this user did for many other photos). 2) There is a vivid text in the right corner of the photo tells about the author and I see the first word "Tran", a common lastname in Vietnam, that what people often do when the upload to a website and don't want anyone to steal it ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinhtantran (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yulia Volkova 2.jpg
User:Mr Vinx is playing around with this image, the "source" in Vietnamese Wikipedia is also claiming that "This image is free because it is free in en.wiki. I have tagged in vi.wiki also. Vinhtantran (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Katina tatu.jpg
The same asImage:Yulia Volkova 2.jpg Vinhtantran (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Agency.jpg
Very unlikely this user has the capability to release this image Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I have granted permission from Diana Day to use this imageOrson20 (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Woman1.jpg
Very unlikely this user has the capability to release this image Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I designed this image. Orson20 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kmadonna.jpg
No evidence of a CC license or any other free license on the source page. Polly (Parrot) 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Solaris10.jpg
Solaris 10 != OpenSolaris →AzaToth 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:2Bwick2001.jpg
Nowhere on the source does it say that it is PD. Asenine 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anitabrat.jpg
Claimed fair use from poster, and being one frame from a movie, but the one frame is used in a wallpaper which is itself copyrighted and not released under fair use ("Wallpaper design (c) Ningen" from source link). — 76.202.225.128 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:040901 008 aperturadesesion.jpg
Uploaded after 2006, and thus eligible for deletion. Source is not specific enough (see {{bsr}}) to ensure this file was posted before 4-06. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image was originally posted at the Presidencia website, which is now deleted, but when it was still online it stated that all its content was of public domain so even though the website is no longer available the information still usable. Supaman89 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dutch people.jpg
at least two of the images on this collage may not be in the public domain: specifically, [1]. There is no indication that for either, the author died 70 years ago (especially not Hannie Schaft). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know who else you mean, but the dutch copyright works so that the image is free 70 years after it was taken. The image of Hannie Schaft is older than that, UNLESS the image was taken during world war II but this is extremely unlikely because images during wwII were very rare here, especially portrait images. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
